ORDER Vyas, J. - 1. In this bunch of first appeals preferred under section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, "the Act") M.P. Housing Board, Bhopal, and its officer, Executive Engineer, Ujjain, have called in question the defensibility of the award passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Ujjain, on 26.3.1993 in Miscellaneous Cases Nos. 44/86, 45/86, 48/86, 42/86, 37/86, 43/86, 51/86 and thereby awarding compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per bigha for irrigated land and Rs.38,000/- per bigha for unirrigated land along with 30% solatium and interest as per provisions of the Act. 2. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal arc as follows: (i) The Housing Board of M.P. was in need of some land for construction of houses as per World Bank Scheme, therefore, a notification was issued in the M.P. Gazette dated 17.6.1983 under section 4(a) and 17(1) of the Act. Thereafter another notification was published under section 6 in the Official Gazette of M.P. on 28.7.1983. By these notifications the land belonging to the respondent was notified to be acquired for the M.P. Housing Board for the abovesaid purpose, objections were called and the respondents in all the appeals under disposal submitted the respective claims for compensation before the concerning Land Acquisition Officer, Ujjain. The concerned Land Acquisition irrigated and unirrigated lands were all treated in the same category and average price per hectare was fixed to Rs.1,10,970/- and on this rate compensation was awarded. Apart from this, compensation for other structures, wells, pump house and tree was also awarded to the concerning persons. The amount so awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was withdrawn by the respondents under protest. (ii) Before Additional District Judge, the respondent contended in their applications of reference that the price of the land fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer was too inadequate and the market value of the land was much more than the value fixed by the Land Acquisition, Officer. It has also been contended that the value of the lands acquired was something around Rs.60,000/- per bigha. In the reference application it was also contended that just compensation has also not been awarded for well, pump house; electric motors, trees etc. It has also been contended that the value of the lands acquired was something around Rs.60,000/- per bigha. In the reference application it was also contended that just compensation has also not been awarded for well, pump house; electric motors, trees etc. It has been specifically mentioned in the reference application by the respondent that the acquired land was in the vicinity of some developed residential area of Ujjain city and was having the potential value for diversion and thereafter for being used as residential area. It has also been stated in the reference application that the acquired land is near to Ujjain-Agra Road and MR5 Road and therefore capable of fetching better price. (iii) The Housing Board and the State Government, combating the objections raised by the respondents in their reference applications, contended that Land Acquisition Officer had taken into consideration all the relevant facts as for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation and thereafter passed an award of just compensation which does not require any enhancement. (iv) The learned V Additional District Judge, Ujjain, framed many issues in the reference cases but basically the battle between the parties hinges on two fundamental aspects as to whether the Land Acquisition Officer has granted proper compensation and if not, what amount of compensation the land owners were entitled to. (v) Before reference Court the respondent examined witnesses including ex-Patwari of the village, Mohanlal S/o Ganpat Rao PW2 and produced three documents Ex.P-2 is a sale-deed of Mohan executed by Manohar Singh etc. in favour of Shipranjali Sahkari Griha Nirman Samiti with respect to their land bearing Survey No. 1525/2 area 0.221 hectare. Ex.P-3 is another sale-deed in favour of the same Shipranjali Sahkari Griha Nirman Samiti executed by Babu Bhai S/o Mani Bhai etc. with respect to their land Survey No. 1525/1 area 0.22 hectare. Both these sale-deeds were executed for Rs.42,000/- on 14.7.1983 and 6.5.1983 respectively. Ex.P-4 is another sale-deed executed by Allauddeen in favour of Nagudas regarding land bearing survey No.1019/3 area 13 hectare for a consideration of Rs.4,000/-. Ex.P-5 is another sale-deed of land bearing survey No. 1547/1 area 0.579 hectare (5790 sq.m.) for a consideration of Rs.1,14,000/-. The appellant, however, preferred not to adduce any evidence in the rebuttal of the documentary and oral evidence adduced by the respondents. Ex.P-5 is another sale-deed of land bearing survey No. 1547/1 area 0.579 hectare (5790 sq.m.) for a consideration of Rs.1,14,000/-. The appellant, however, preferred not to adduce any evidence in the rebuttal of the documentary and oral evidence adduced by the respondents. After due consideration of the evidence available on record the impugned award were passed by the learned Additional District Judge. 3. In these appeals Mrs. Meena Chaphekar learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the award passed by the learned lower Court mainly on the ground that the learned lower Court has taken into consideration those sale-deeds which are of the land which are far away from the acquired land, and, therefore, such sale-deeds cannot be used as a basis for enhancing the amount of consideration. She has also submitted that the acquired land is far away from Ujjain-Agra Road and most of the survey numbers are also away from the MR5 Road. She has also urged that at the time of acquisition of land the adjacent area was totally undeveloped and undulated so the acquired land was not situated at such a place where it can fetch higher price. She has specially drawn our attention toward the sketch map Ex.P-3 showing the situation of the survey numbers of acquired land vis-a-vis Ujjain-Agra Road and MR5 Road as well as the survey numbers which have been shown in the sale-deeds produced by the respondents and on the basis of this map she tried to persuade us that the price of the land sold by the sale-deed produced by respondents is of no assistance to assess the reasonable price of the land acquired. 4. Per contra learned senior counsel Shri Ashok Garg assisted by Shri N.K. Jain advocate has submitted that the acquired land is situated within the municipal area of Ujjain city and is near to the developed colony of the Ujjain and industrial area of Ujjain. These lands are also near Ujjain-Agra Road as well as MR5 Road. The special situation of these lands shows that the lands have got potential value being in near vicinity of developed area and nearby the highway. He has argued that the learned Additional District Judge has taken into consideration all the relevant circumstances and thereafter fixed the price of the acquired land on acreage basis which calls for no interference by this Court in these appeals. He has argued that the learned Additional District Judge has taken into consideration all the relevant circumstances and thereafter fixed the price of the acquired land on acreage basis which calls for no interference by this Court in these appeals. He has, however, drawn our attention towards a judgment of the apex Court passed in M/s. Printers House Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Salyadan (deceased) by LRs and others [ AIR 1994 SC 1160 ], in which the apex Court held as under: "(A) Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), S.23 -- Valuation of acquired land -- method of -- separate plots of acquired lands with differing features -- should not be valued at uniform rate per unit measure. If 'Comparable Sales Method of Valuation of Land' is adopted for determining the market-value of an acquired plot of land, it generally holds good for determination of the market-value of several acquired plots of land if acquisition of all such plots of land is made pursuant to the same preliminary notification. But if any of the factors, such as, location, shape, size, potentiality or tenure of one plot of acquired land widely differs from the other plot(s) of acquired land(s), then the market-value of each plot of land acquired has to be determined independently of the other(s) even if all of them had been acquired pursuant to the same preliminary notification. The reason is not far to seek since the differential factors relating to different acquired plots greatly affect their value. Hence, if any salient factor of different acquired plots of land, which greatly affects their value is ignored or is not taken into consideration by the Court while determining the market-value of acquired lands, it will have failed to apply the correct principle of valuation adoptable in valuation of different types of acquired lands. Thus, when the evidence in the case clearly established that the different plots of lands of three claimants acquired; varied greatly as to their sizes, shapes and location (situation) they could not have fetched a uniform rate, if the same had been sold in the open market by each of the claimants. Thus, when the evidence in the case clearly established that the different plots of lands of three claimants acquired; varied greatly as to their sizes, shapes and location (situation) they could not have fetched a uniform rate, if the same had been sold in the open market by each of the claimants. Therefore, determination of the market-value of almost all the acquired plots of lands at a uniform rate, on the wrong assumption that all the 5 plots of acquired lands would have fetched the same rate if sold in the open market, would not be proper." 5. Learned counsel for the appellant Ms. Chaphekar has placed reliance on R.P. Singh v. Union of India [(2005)7 7 SCC 24] and argued that a Single Bench of this High Court while deciding the FAs No. 51/94, 52/ 94,53/94 and 54/94 has confirmed rate of Rs.30,000/- per bigha regarding land which is near to the vicinity of the lands acquired from the respondents and therefore the compensation payable to the present respondent should not be higher than @ Rs.30,000/- per bigha. In paragraph (9) of the abovesaid judgment this Court has held as under: "Para (9) -- The appellants have produced sale-deeds Ex.P-2 to P5 to show that the land in the vicinity were sold with the price per bigha which was more than Rs.40,000/- per bigha. The lands which were sold by the sale-deeds Ex.P-2 to P-5 were irrigated and adjacent to the main road. The appellants/applicants have not produced the copy of khasra or any documentary evidence which show that their land was irrigated. The acquired land of the appellants is not so near and adjacent to the main road as the land which was sold vide sale-deed Ex.P-2, P-3, P-4 and P-5. From the sale-deeds Ex.P-2 to P-5, the average rate of the land comes to about Rs.42,000/- per bigha. In view of the fact that the land of the appellants/applicants was unirrigated and not so near and adjacent to the main road, the learned trial Court has not committed the mistake in making the assessment of the land." 6. Shri Ashok Garg learned senior counsel for the respondents relying on the above paragraph submitted that in this paragraph the average rate of the land has been held to be about Rs.42,000/- per bigha. We have read this portion of the judgment passed by this Court in another case. Shri Ashok Garg learned senior counsel for the respondents relying on the above paragraph submitted that in this paragraph the average rate of the land has been held to be about Rs.42,000/- per bigha. We have read this portion of the judgment passed by this Court in another case. It will not be of any help to the respondents because ultimately in those cases also, which were before the Court in those appeals it was held that the land of the appellants in all those cases were unirrigated and not show adjacent to the main road, therefore, the learned trial Court has not committed any mistake in making the assessment of the land. At the same time the judgment is of no help to the appellants also. Firstly because the case was decided by a Single Bench of this Court and so does not have a binding effect in the present appeals and secondly in those cases which were before the Court while deciding first appeal No.51/94 and others the reference Court granted compensation to the appellants @ 30 thousand per bigha. After considering the situation of the land acquired in those cases and all other relevant factors the survey numbers which were acquired in those cases were 1573/2, 1573/1, 1647 and 1633/1 whereas the survey numbers of the lands of the respondents are as under: Appeal No. Name of the Respondent Survey No. Area-hectare FA 141/93 Bhagirath S/o Surajmal 1569 0.031, 1.364 1570 0.178 1705/1 & 0.094 1572 FA 143/93 Moolchand S/o Poonamchand 1694/1/2 0.931 1695 1.014 FA 147/93 Leeladhar S/o Pooranchand 1698/2 0.010 1699 0.042 1700 3.167 FA 144/93 Rajesh S/o Poonamchand 1701 0.084 1704 0.094 FA 146/93 Kanhaiyalal 1636 1.457 FA 142/145 Poonamchand 1702 0.230 1703 2.236 7. The Patwari map which has been produced in all the cases shows that all the acquired lands pertaining to the present appeals are situated in between Agra Road and MR5 Road. The map also shows that Heera Mill area and industrial area are also quite near from these lands which have been acquired. These acquired lands are all agriculture land and were being used for agriculture purposes immediately before the acquisition. The map also shows that Heera Mill area and industrial area are also quite near from these lands which have been acquired. These acquired lands are all agriculture land and were being used for agriculture purposes immediately before the acquisition. Learned reference Court, while deciding the question of compensation to be paid to the respondents, have taken into consideration all the relevant factors including the potential value for building site nearness from highway roads, nearness from developed area, etc. The documents which were produced before the reference Court were also duly considered. The sale-deeds which were produced before reference Court were showing an average price of agriculture land in that area on an average of Rs.40,000/- per bigha, but because most of the sale-deeds were pertaining to small areas of land, therefore, the reference Court awarded Rs.38,000/- per bigha for unirrigated land and Rs.50,000/- per bigha for irrigated land. The approach of the learned reference Court appears to be quite reasonable. 8. Out of the sale-deeds which were produced two sale-deeds were in favour of the cooperative housing society and were pertaining to two portion of the same survey numbers which were sold on the same price of Rs.42,000/- for admeasuring 0.022 hectare and 0.0221 hectare respectively. Third sale-deed was also pertaining to small piece of land which was sold for Rs.4,000/-. Of course, by the fourth sale-deed 0.579 hectare of survey No. 1527/1 was sold. All the sale-deeds which were produced before learned reference Court were pertaining to small pieces of land. Therefore, the learned reference Court awarded @ Rs.38,000/- per bigha for the average rate of Rs.40,000/- per bigha was worked out. This indicates the reasonableness of approach to the learned reference Court. 9. It is a matter of common experience that when someone goes to purchase a land from open market then he is required to pay more price for irrigated land in comparison to unirrigated land. This facts was taken into consideration by learned reference Court and reasonably higher price has been fixed for irrigated land. 10. Ms. Meena Chaphekar learned counsel for the appellants argued on the basis of the judgment of Supreme Court passed in H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi and others [ (2004)2 SCC 184 ], that 33.33% deduction should have made towards development cost. 10. Ms. Meena Chaphekar learned counsel for the appellants argued on the basis of the judgment of Supreme Court passed in H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S. Negi and others [ (2004)2 SCC 184 ], that 33.33% deduction should have made towards development cost. In that case 5 sale instances were taken into consideration by the reference Court and in all those cases the sold land was irrigated where as the acquired land was unirrigated. But the reference Court holding that the lands were acquired for housing purposes whether being irrigated or not irrigated makes no difference as they are all suitable and acquired for construction activities. Ultimately they made approach to the High Court and High Court refused to take into consideration the 2 sale instances sighted by the appellants as they themselves were the person who offer the prices and on that basis as well as deducting 40% for largeness of the land reduced the amount of compensation. Supreme Court restored the finding of the reference Court but ordered for deduction of 33.33% as sale instances whereof small pieces of land and acquisition was of a large pieces of land. We are afraid this judgment will also be of no help to appellants because the lands belonging to the respondents and acquired by the State for all small pieces lands situated near to each other in area as well as in proximity to MR5 Road they are all comparable with the sale instances produced in the present cases and therefore, the reasonable price for the acquired land was rightly determined on the basis of the average of the sale price of the sale instances. 11. Ms. Chaphekar also relied upon Kasturi and others v. State of Haryana [ (2003) 1 SCC 354 ], but in that case the compensation was awarded @ Rs.125/- per sq.yard as against the rate of Rs.11.8 per sq.yard awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The area acquired was not a small area, therefore, the Supreme Court agreeing that the High Court approving the cut off 20% towards development charges as against the normal 1/3. The facts of the present case are not alike. The compensation has been awarded as agriculture land on acreage basis and not on the basis of per sq.feet or per sq.metre. 12. The facts of the present case are not alike. The compensation has been awarded as agriculture land on acreage basis and not on the basis of per sq.feet or per sq.metre. 12. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the cases in which the impugned awards have been passed and the argument advanced by both the parties from all angles we are of the view that the amount of compensation as fixed by the learned reference Court is just and proper and calls for no interference in these appeals. 13. Consequently, all these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. The order of the learned reference Court is hereby confirmed. Parties are directed to bear their own cost of these appeals.